Ref:
EACH GRADE PROCESS, THAT IS RUN ON A METER, MUST BE CHECKED FOR A READ BEFORE IT IS RUN AND IF NOT READING, IT IS NOT RUN AT THAT TIME.
I believe that the HCOB in question, HCOB 23 Jun 80 has created an Out Tech situation of pcs being run on unreading processes on Grades, leading to PC protest, out of session-ness and a tendency on some auditors' parts to cease to expect a process EP! Though the issue was purported to be a handling of quickying, it gave rise to quickying.
A process or question or command can be suppressed or invalidated which would prevent a read and could cause a miss if these buttons were not gotten in.
A process that has been started but left unflat (not taken to EP) may no longer read on the process question but would read on unflat? or incomplete?
These rules apply to subjective grade processes; they do not apply to processes that are not run on a meter such as objective processes or assists (except for metered assist actions).
It is a Gross Auditing Error to run an unreading Grade process on a pc; it is also a Gross Auditing Error for an auditor to miss reads on processes or questions and so not run them. A C/S seeing too many processes or questions said to be unreading should suspect that the auditor's metering is out and get it checked in Cramming. If found to be out, order a retread or retrain of the E-Meter Drills and put the auditor through the drills given in HCOB 22 Apr 80, ASSESSMENT DRILLS.
Actually, a process that “doesn't read” stems from three sources: (a) The process is not charged; (b) The process is invalidated or suppressed or (c) Ruds are out in session.
Factually PC interest also plays a part in this.
I think quickying came from (1) Auditors trying to push past the existing or persistent F/Ns or (2) Auditors with TRs so poor that the PC was not in session. Nearly all grade processes and flows will read on PCs in that grade chart area unless the above two conditions are present.
One also doesn't make a big production of checking as it distracts the PC. There is a system, one of many, one can use. One can say, “the next process is (state wording of the auditing question)” and see if it reads. This does not take more than a glance. If no read but, more likely, if it isn't charged, an F/N or smoothly null needle, one hardly pauses and one adds “but are you interested in it?” PC will consider it and if not charged and PC in session, it will F/N or F/N more widely.
If charged, the PC would ordinarily put his attention on it and you'd get a fall or just a stopped F/N followed by a fall on the interest part of the question.
It takes pretty smooth auditing to do this and not miss. So if in doubt, one can again check the question. But never hound or harass a PC about it. Inexpert checking questions for read can result in a harassed PC and drive him out of session so this auditing action, like any other, requires smooth auditing.